We follow Pesach (Passover) rules for each keli (utensil) according to its rov tashmisho (majority of its use). If most of the times a utensil was used, it was used with liquid, even though it was sometimes used with dry food, it is kashered through hag'alah (kashering in boiling water). If it was mostly used with dry food, like electric oven trays, it requires libun (kashering by fire), as we will explain later.
What if a keli (utensil) was mostly used for permitted food, but was used with chametz once? We do not say that because most of its use was permitted, we need not worry about the chametz. Once you have used it with chametz, it has absorbed chametz. Its hechsher (kashering) may be determined by its majority use, but even one use with chametz makes it prohibited.
Therefore, a micham (hot-water urn) on which someone sometimes places a bourekas (savory pastry) to warm it may not be used without kashering. The bourekas is placed on the outside of the urn, on top of it, so the urn needs a hechsher (kashering).
Similarly, a knife used to cut bread needs to be kashered if it was once used to cut hot bread or hot cake; “o lenasot et hasakin lechamin sheyesh bo chitah,” or to try the knife for hot foods that have wheat; if it was once stuck into a hot schnitzel with breadcrumbs; or if it was used to cut hot pizza, or something similar. That is where we left off yesterday. If the knife was never used for chametz, it is fine.
Shifudim (spits) and askala'ot (grills) used to roast meat over a fire sometimes have chametz placed on them. Since they are generally used over a fire, without liquid, how do you kasher them? They require libun in fire, until actual sparks fly from them. Hag'alah is not effective for them lechatchilah (initially), because, due to the chumra (stringency) of chametz, we are concerned for the opinions that chametz retains its name and that the utensil is treated as having absorbed a prohibition.
So this is the subject we have to examine: Is chametz considered heiteira bala (absorbed permitted food), or issura bala (absorbed a prohibition)? We are more lenient in kashering utensils when what they absorbed went in while permitted. Before Pesach, chametz is technically permitted. So, if we call it heiteira bala, we are more lenient in extracting it. By contrast, milk and meat, or non-kosher food, are issura bala. When chametz went into a pot before Pesach—on Pesach, or two days or a week before Pesach—it was not an issur (prohibition). If we say chametz is issura bala, however, we have to use the full measure of hag'alah to permit the utensil.
The chachamim (sages) have a major discussion about how to classify chametz. The Mishnah in Avodah Zarah (Idolatry) says that someone who buys kelim (utensils) from a non-Jew must burn out spits and grills. The Rif (Rif) and the Rosh (Rosh) bring this law in connection with chametz, applying the discussion about utensils bought from non-Jews to chametz as well.
Tosafot point out a contradiction. The Tosefta says that spits, grills, and knives must be burned out. But in Pesachim it asks, “What do we do with the knives of Pesach?” and answers that both kinds are treated with boiling water. Why, in Avodah Zarah, does it say that knives bought from non-Jews need libun, while the Gemara says that knives for Pesach need only hag'alah?
Rabbeinu Tam (Rabbi Jacob Tam) says there is a distinction: chametz is different because it is heiteira bala. Tosafot’s chiddush (novel insight) is that since the chametz went in while permitted, we are somewhat more lenient in extracting it. This is also the distinction Tosafot makes in the discussion of Avodah Zarah.
According to Rabbeinu Tam, then, spits and grills also need only hag'alah for chametz, since it was heiteira bala. This is also the opinion of the Ra'avad (Ra'avad), cited in Sefer Torat HaBayit and by the Ran (Ran); the Ra'avad writes this in his Pesach discourse.
On the other hand, the Ran cites the opinion of the Ramban (Ramban), who holds that utensils that absorbed chametz are considered issura bala, even though they absorbed it before Pesach, when it was permitted, because chametz retains its name. The Maharam Chalavah (Maharam Chalavah) agrees, as do the Me'iri (Me'iri), Machzor Vitri (Vitry Prayer Book), and, as cited in Sefer HaMichtam (Sefer HaMichtam) and Orchot Chayim (Orchot Chayim), the Ran. The Beit Yosef (Beit Yosef) also writes in the name of Rabbenu Yerucham (Rabbenu Yerucham) that most of the poskim (halachic authorities) hold like the Ramban: chametz is considered issura bala.
Let us open the Rambam (Maimonides), Hilchot Chametz U-Matzah (Laws of Chametz and Matzah), chapter 5, halachah 23. It is always a lucky day when we open a Rambam. The Rambam says that metal or stone utensils used with chametz in boiling water in a first-degree vessel—for example, pots and cooking vessels—are placed in a large vessel filled with water, which is brought to a boil, until the absorbed matter is released. Then the utensil is rinsed in cold water and used for matzah (unleavened bread). Knives are also treated in a first-degree vessel: the blade and handle are boiled, and then the knives may be used for matzah.
The Rambam says to kasher the knife through hag'alah. How can a knife be kashered through hag'alah if it was used over a fire? They want to bring proof from the Rambam’s wording, “boil the blade”: perhaps he holds heiteira bala.
Chacham Yitzchak brings the passage and points to the Magid Mishneh (Magid Mishneh), which explains the words “boil the blade.” The Gemara says: “Ravina said to Rav Ashi: toda raba, what do we do with the knives of Pesach? He said to him: coat their handles with clay and put their metal parts in the fire.” Then it says to put the handles in boiling water, and concludes that both are treated with boiling water. In practice, everything is treated with boiling water in a first-degree vessel.
The Magid Mishneh says that it is possible the Rambam’s reason for requiring only hag'alah for knives is that he holds heiteira bala; he cites the Gemara in Avodah Zarah 76b, where the commentators disagree: some say knives require libun, and others say that since what was absorbed was permitted, hag'alah is enough. That is the proof they want to bring for the Rambam. But in chapter 17 of the Laws of Forbidden Foods, when someone buys a knife from a non-Jew, the Rambam says it requires libun. It seems that the Rambam contradicts himself: in one place he requires libun, and in another, hag'alah. The answer is heiteira bala.
However, the Ramban and the Rashba (Rashba) hold that chametz should be treated like utensils that absorbed non-Jewish food. They hold that even those knives do not need more than hag'alah. That is a different position from the one we have seen so far: even for utensils bought from non-Jews, they say hag'alah is enough.
So far, who holds heiteira bala? Rabbeinu Tam, the Ra'avad, and perhaps the Rambam. The text then lists the Yere'im (Yere'im), Semag (Semag), Rosh, Ravyah (Ravyah), Or Zaru'a (Or Zaru'a), Rabbenu Yeshayah (Rabbenu Yeshayah), Sefer Ha-me'orot (Sefer Ha-me'orot), and Tosfot Rid (Tosfot Rid). It also cites Hagahot Maimoni (Hagahot Maimoni), Rabbenu Chayim ben Shemuel (Rabbenu Chayim ben Shemuel), and Tzeror Ha-chayim (Tzeror Ha-chayim) as holding this way.
Nevertheless, in practice one should be stringent, following the opinion of the Tur (Tur) and the Shulchan Aruch (Set Table). Where is the Shulchan Aruch? It is in chapter 451, section 4, as cited in the Beit Yosef. The Shulchan Aruch says that utensils used over a fire, such as spits and grills, require libun, until sparks actually fly from them.
Why should spits and grills require libun? At first glance, hag'alah should be enough, since it was heiteira bala. The Be'er Ha-golah (Be'er Ha-golah) raises the question, “Or perhaps we decree?” The Rif and Rosh bring this in chapter 2 of Pesachim, and most authorities agree that the law of chametz is to be equated with other prohibitions.
So this is an important principle in the laws of kashering utensils: according to Maran (Our master), chametz is issura bala. That is a major point to write down. Maran follows most of the rishonim (early authorities). Therefore, initially, we cannot be lenient and downgrade the required kashering. The after-the-fact case is the next discussion. When instructing someone initially, we cannot simply say, “It is heiteira bala, so hag'alah is enough.” Otherwise, we could use hag'alah for everything.
“But before Pesach, when it went in, it was heiteira bala. There was no prohibition then.”
“You are right: on Pesach it is issur, but we are discussing when it went in. It went in be-heter (permitted).”
The other opinion says, “No. Even before Pesach, it is called chametz; chametz has a shem issur (name of prohibition).”
Chametz is not prohibited during the rest of the year, whether it belongs to a non-Jew or a Jew, a week, a month, or five months before Pesach. That is the big insight behind heiteira bala. But the other side says that chametz retains its name. What do you call it before Pesach? Bread. What do you call bread in February? You call it chametz. It is called chametz, and that name is prohibited for seven days a year.
It is like calling it “kosher pig”: it is permitted during the year, but its shem chametz (designation as chametz) still carries the association of a prohibition. No one is arguing that you cannot eat chametz during the year. The question is whether the name chametz remains relevant to what it absorbed. There are fifty rishonim (early authorities) who say issura bala. That is the reasoning for issura bala.
After the fact, Chacham Yitzchak says that if the utensil was kashered with hag'alah and then used, the food may be permitted, even within me'et le'et (a full twenty-four hours). This is because one can rely on the opinions that chametz on Pesach is considered heiteira bala. All the more so if a full twenty-four hours had passed. But that is an after-the-fact ruling. Why go so far as to make a safek sefeika (double doubt) after twenty-four hours? The sages made all these rules.
“Are you saying this applies if it was a non-Jew’s utensil? Is this a twenty-four-hour-use issue? Does that reasoning play in?” “A non-Jew’s utensil is issura bala. They were lenient about heiteira bala, not issura bala. With issura bala, you need the full measure. They were lenient in kashering a chametz utensil because it is only heiteira bala.”
The point is that something that would normally require libun may be treated more leniently and kashered with hag'alah if it is heiteira bala. But Maran rules stringently initially, following the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch.
“What does the Shulchan Aruch say about spits and grills? Why does it require libun? At first glance, hag'alah should be enough, since it is heiteira bala.”
“Maran must hold issura bala. What does the Be'er Ha-golah cite? The Ramban and the Ran. The Beit Yosef says that most authorities equate the law of chametz with other prohibitions.”
That is Maran’s position: chametz is issura bala. But after the fact, Chacham Yitzchak discusses whether the utensil can be permitted. “Before Pesach, when it was absorbed, there was no prohibition. Bottom line, it was permitted.”
The other opinion says that chametz already has a shem issur. “But chametz is not prohibited during the year.” That is true; the dispute is not about whether it may be eaten during the year. The dispute is whether the name of chametz remains on it. The analogy is “kosher pig”: it is permitted, but the name still indicates what it is. That is the reasoning for issura bala.
Now consider the after-the-fact case. If someone kashered the utensil with hag'alah and used it, the food may be permitted—even if it was used within me'et le'et. The case is that on Pesach, someone used a spit for bread the day before, then kashered it with hag'alah and used it for matzah. The food was cooked on Pesach with a utensil that had absorbed chametz within twenty-four hours, and was kashered with hag'alah.
For other prohibitions, even after the fact, if someone used hag'alah instead of libun and then cooked in the utensil, the food is prohibited and there is no remedy. This is cited in the Mordechai. But in our case, even though we rule stringently that libun is required because chametz is issura bala, as Maran ruled, that is initially. After the fact, if someone roasted or cooked in the utensils on Erev Pesach after midday, the food may be permitted.
The Ritva, after citing the Ramban’s position that chametz is different because it retains its name and is issura bala, gives another reason. With notar (leftover sacrificial meat), the prohibition is only when it imparts taste, as with other prohibitions. After kashering the spit, there is not enough taste left to impart, because it was heiteira bala. But chametz on Pesach is prohibited even in the smallest amount. We must therefore be concerned that the small amount remaining may be released and prohibit the food.
That is a different reason for being stringent. Even if you call chametz heiteira bala, because chametz on Pesach is prohibited in any amount, we are stringent to remove it fully. The Ritva’s basis is the law of utensils used over a fire: spits and grills require libun, even though chametz is heiteira bala, because chametz on Pesach is prohibited in any amount.
This explains the question raised by the Peri Chadash (Peri Chadash) about the Rosh. At first glance, it seems the Rosh holds that chametz retains its name and is issura bala, even though it also says heiteira bala. But this does not prove that the Rosh holds heiteira bala. One can hold heiteira bala and still be stringent about chametz because it is prohibited in any amount. Perhaps Maran also holds heiteira bala, yet was stringent about libun for the spits because of the severity of chametz on Pesach.
Now open chapter 452, halachah 1. We have not reached it yet, but this is where we are going. Maran writes that one should take care to kasher utensils before the fifth hour, so as not to have to determine whether they were used within the previous twenty-four hours. After the fifth hour, chametz is already prohibited. Before the fifth hour, you can kasher them without that concern.
Why does Maran allow kashering a utensil that was used within twenty-four hours, without worrying about pagum (impaired taste)? He calls it noten ta'am bar noten ta'am (a taste imparted twice). There is a taste in the pot, and that taste goes into the water. If the water then returns to the utensil, the taste has been imparted twice. It is a double taste, so what is the problem?
Maran’s language, as cited by the Mishnah Berurah (Mishnah Berurah), is noten ta'am bar noten ta'am deheteira (a taste imparted twice from permitted food). There are two kinds of taste imparted twice: one involving a prohibition, and one involving permitted food. This is the permitted kind because it is before the prohibited time.
But this seems to contradict chapter 451, section 4. There Maran says that spits require libun, which sounds like issura bala. Here, in chapter 452, he allows kashering before the time because the taste is a taste imparted twice from permitted food. You hear the contradiction? In one place, Maran is stringent; here, he is lenient.
The chametz in the wall of the utensil is one taste. It goes out into the water, then goes back in. That is noten ta'am bar noten ta'am deheteira. It is permitted. It is called a double taste. When the chametz is in the pot, it is only one taste, which is a problem. Hag'alah takes it out into the water and dilutes it once. It then becomes a taste imparted twice from permitted food.
So what does Maran mean when he says in section 4 that it is a prohibition? Perhaps Maran really holds heiteira bala, and required libun there only as a stringency regarding chametz. Here, when hag'alah makes it a taste imparted twice, he is lenient. On this reading, the fundamental law is heiteira bala, and the requirement of libun in section 4 is a stringency.
There is a difficulty with that explanation. In the case requiring libun, the taste is not weakened as it is with noten ta'am bar noten ta'am. Although ordinary utensils are generally not used within twenty-four hours, once the authorities were stringent and required kashering even for utensils of uncertain use, they treated that absorption as complete chametz absorption.
Look again at the Mishnah Berurah on chapter 452. It explains that if one kasheres before the fifth hour, there is no need for all those precautions because chametz is still permitted. The first taste that the utensils received was permitted, and the taste the water now receives from the utensils is also permitted. When the water returns the taste to the utensils, it is noten ta'am bar noten ta'am deheteira.
So Maran does call it noten ta'am bar noten ta'am deheteira. Does that mean he holds heiteira bala? Perhaps he was only concerned initially in section 4 and was stringent there. I saw in Chazon Ovadiah (Chazon Ovadiah) that since this is only a weakened taste, the chametz has lost its name, and the reason that chametz retains its name does not make it prohibited in this case.
Noten ta'am bar noten ta'am is already a weakened taste. In the case of a spit, you do not have noten ta'am bar noten ta'am; the taste remains in the utensil, so it is one taste that must be extracted. With libun, the taste is treated as strong. But in the ordinary case where hag'alah is sufficient, Maran calls it heiteira bala. Therefore, perhaps you do not have to wait twenty-four hours and can kasher it even within that time.
This would reconcile Maran’s statements. The Me'iri also writes this and brings the principle that the taste has weakened. We now have two ways to understand Maran. The straightforward reading is that he holds issura bala, based on section 4. But that would make Maran disagree with the Rambam, which we generally try to avoid. Another approach is that Maran holds heiteira bala, but has an additional stringency regarding chametz. After the fact, then, there may be room to be lenient.
In practice, even though Maran ruled like the Rif and Rosh to be stringent and require libun, after the fact he may agree that one can rely on the many authorities who say heiteira bala. This is also the approach brought by Chazon Ovadiah: since this is only a weakened taste, chametz loses its name, and the argument that it retains its name does not prohibit it here.
But if you buy a spit from a non-Jew, perhaps there is another prohibition in it. That is why libun may be needed in any case: how do you know the non-Jew did not use it for pork? That is certainly an issue of prohibition. So, to be clear, the straightforward way to read Maran is issura bala, based on section 4, which is why libun is required. In chapter 452, however, the taste has already been diluted through noten ta'am bar noten ta'am. Perhaps there it is a weakened taste, and can be removed in a more lenient way.
Initially, we follow the rule that libun requires libun and hag'alah requires hag'alah. But Chacham Ovadia, in Me'or Yisrael (Light of Israel), says that even according to our practice one should be stringent about spits and grills, as Maran says they require libun. Nevertheless, if there is an additional basis for leniency, one may rely on most of the authorities. That gives you a way out: in practice, we are stringent like Maran, but after the fact there are opinions that say heiteira bala, and perhaps Maran himself is stringent only initially.
If someone asks us in practice what Maran holds, we have to say issura bala. Chapter 452 is different: it is a weakened taste, already diluted through noten ta'am bar noten ta'am. Perhaps Maran is more lenient there, but as a principle he is stringent.
Now another halachah: baking pans used for loaves in an oven require libun in a fire until sparks fly. The same applies to trays in electric ovens. Some disagree and permit kashering them with hag'alah; someone who is lenient has authorities to rely on. At first glance, they were used with fire. The Magen Avraham (Magen Avraham), Chok Ya'akov (Chok Ya'akov), and She'elat Shalom (She'elat Shalom) are cited. Chazon Ovadiah writes that it seems to him that one who is lenient and uses hag'alah has support from a double doubt.
Regarding kashering an oven for Pesach, the oven should be cleaned thoroughly inside and on all its walls, then heated thoroughly for an hour or more. One should avoid using it for chametz for twenty-four hours before heating it. That is how he permits it: do not use it for twenty-four hours, clean it, and heat it for an hour.
What are the grounds for leniency? First, even if the libun does not reach the point where sparks fly, if most of the oven’s chametz use is considered heiteira bala, some degree of libun is enough. We learned that you do not need libun that produces sparks; libun with straw is enough if the straw burns. This is also the opinion of Maran in the Beit Yosef.
Second, the chametz itself is not absorbed into the oven. The chametz is in pans, and the oven has only ze'ah (steam). Here, we can say kevole'o kach polto (as absorbed, so expelled): however it went in, that is how it comes out. If the oven was at 350 degrees, it will come out at 350 degrees, because what entered was only steam, not chametz itself.
Third, if the utensil is not ben yomo (used within twenty-four hours), the prohibition is only rabbinic, so one can be lenient based on pagum. Fourth, the responsum Tuv Ta'am VaDa'at (Tuv Ta'am VaDa'at) says that the law of steam may apply only to liquids that produce vapor; with dry foods, there may be no steam at all. It is possible, then, that the oven walls did not absorb chametz. Therefore, some degree of libun is enough.
Fifth, there may be no other practical way to kasher the oven. What are you going to do with it? If you cannot use this method, what is the alternative—do not use the oven? Torch it? You would break it. According to Chacham Ovadia, this is a very practical way to kasher an oven. If it has a self-cleaning setting, that is certainly easier. Otherwise, heat it at the highest setting for an hour, and you have grounds for leniency.
One can also say that because of kevole'o kach polto, heating the oven thoroughly is sufficient. Maran may not hold that way. Look at Maran in chapter 451, section 19, regarding the Rachat (baking implement), which is called a pala. Maran says that some authorities hold hag'alah does not work for it and that one must buy a new one. Why? Put it back in the oven the way it was used. It is made of metal, or perhaps wood, but it became chametz through the oven. Why not put it back in the oven? Maran says no: it requires libun, and since it is wood, it will break, so buy a new one.
Although Maran rules stringently, one can rely on the other considerations we mentioned, including the opinions that say kevole'o kach polto. Someone asked my father, Chacham Ovadia, about a factory that made chametz cookies and wanted to kasher its pans to bake rich matzah there. Could it use hag'alah instead of libun? They did not bake in those pans on Pesach, only on Erev Pesach. He permitted it. The discussion asks why: they used the pans only before Pesach, when there is a din of bi'ur and the chametz can be nullified. But if it was used with fire, how can kevole'o kach polto permit kashering it with hag'alah? The product itself had chametz, since it was a chametz bakery. That is a major insight and a major kula (leniency): he allowed hag'alah for the pans because they were not baking in them on Pesach. We will see this later in Yabi'a Omer (Yabi'a Omer), in the discussion of whether hag'alah is needed when baking on Erev Pesach.
A metal utensil with a patch attached by solder can be kashered through hag'alah. But if the patch is attached with nails, there is a problem. If the patch was there before the utensil absorbed chametz, it does not need to be removed. If the absorption came first and the patch was attached afterward, that does not help.
Artisans sometimes coat old pots. Even though they apply the coating after a light libun over fire, one should still be stringent and require hag'alah (kashering in boiling water) for Pesach. Nevertheless, hag'alah after the coating is applied is effective; the coating is not an obstruction.
For an electric oven, clean it thoroughly and avoid using it for twenty-four hours. Turn it on to the highest heat possible and leave it on for about a third of an hour, fifteen minutes, so that the heat removes the steam. Those who are lenient and use food in it even within twenty-four hours need not be stopped; they have grounds to rely on.
A toaster is different: it is small, and it is hard to remove the crumbs. But an oven that can be cleaned and has smooth surfaces presents a question. Maran says that anything requiring libun must be heated until sparks fly. Where are the sparks coming from in an oven? They are not. Some are lenient that heating it until straw would burn is enough.
Here, the baking takes place in pans, not directly on the oven walls. The pan is the main concern, and the oven has steam. The same reasoning we just discussed applies. But in an oven where food is baked directly on the walls, you have a bigger problem and lose many of these grounds for leniency.
Now, for those who have one oven, there is the question of kashering an oven for meat and milk. How do you use one oven for both? Not at the same time, of course. But if I use it Monday night for leftovers, and Tuesday afternoon my wife wants to make dairy food, what do we do? If you have two ovens, that is best, but not everybody can have two.
The Tur cites the Rosh regarding a dairy pan placed on a stove beneath a pot of meat. The steam rising from the milk is absorbed into the pot and prohibits it. Maran rules this way. The dairy is below and the meat above; although we said pots do not absorb, they can absorb through liquid or moisture, so the steam from the dairy rises and is absorbed into the meat pot.
On that basis, one might prohibit cooking a meat dish in an oven and then, afterward, cooking a dairy dish there. The steam is absorbed into the oven walls. Steam rising from hot liquids is like the liquids themselves. I cooked calzones; the steam from the calzones went into the walls, which are like a pot. Then I put in a roast. The steam absorbed from the dairy comes out when the oven is heated again and enters the roast.
Later authorities give several reasons to be lenient with food cooked separately: put the meat dish in by itself, then, after a full twenty-four hours, put in the dairy dish, and heat the oven at the highest temperature for fifteen minutes or more. Chacham Ovadia is stringent about this: wait twenty-four hours between meat and milk, then heat the oven for fifteen minutes, at the highest setting.
One can say that the authorities prohibited the case where steam comes directly from the pan into the pot. The steam goes straight from the dairy pan into the meat pot at the same time. An oven is different: first the steam is absorbed into the ceiling and walls of the oven; later, when something else is cooked, steam from that food rises and may release what was absorbed into the walls and carry it into the food.
One can also say that steam does not descend to prohibit food unless the foods are in contact with each other without anything between them. But some explain that Maran does not accept this distinction. They say moisture on the pot’s cover leaves the steam nowhere to go, whereas an oven has air and space between the food and the walls.
The book Even Yekarah rejects the lenient reasoning and says that the fire burns the steam and vapor. Therefore, if the oven is heated, all the steam is burned away. Some also say that steam applies only to liquids. Calzones are not liquids, so why should we worry about steam?
As for the practical ruling, it is permitted to bake dairy-filled pastries in the same oven, provided they are in one tray and twenty-four hours have passed. The oven should also be heated at the highest setting for fifteen minutes before baking. The pastry is covered by its dough. If you cover food with foil, the steam goes into the foil. In that case, you do not have to worry about the twenty-four-hour rule; if you cover your foods, you do not have to worry about any of these prohibitions.
Those who are lenient and use the oven for food even within twenty-four hours need not be stopped. But this leniency is only for foods. Some authorities do not apply the law of steam to food. With soup, however, one may not be lenient unless the pot was well covered, and even then only after a full twenty-four hours, together with heating the oven as described.
So for liquids, he is stringent even when the pot was covered: wait twenty-four hours and heat the oven for fifteen minutes. “What do I tell my wife if she is making calzones in our one oven?” Cover them with foil. Then there is no steam from the food, and even if there is steam, the foil catches it. In that case, one can be lenient and use the oven within twenty-four hours; “within twenty-four hours” means any time before a full twenty-four hours has elapsed, even one second before.
Some foods cannot be covered, like pizza. In those cases, the way to use one oven is the way Chacham Ovadia says. The concern is that steam enters the walls and later comes out. There are distinctions: the oven is larger, the uses occur at different times, perhaps the taste is impaired, and perhaps there was no steam absorption in the first place. With these considerations, there is room to permit it.
“It sounds like he considers the oven like a pot, either meat or dairy.”
“Yes. He says the steam goes into the walls and comes out again. Then you need to consider the distinctions: the oven is larger, the uses happened at separate times, perhaps it is pagum, and perhaps there is no steam in the first place.”
Chacham Yosef has a different heter, and at Ateret they teach that one need not wait twenty-four hours, but should heat it for fifteen minutes; they are more lenient there. In practice, this is what we rule in our shul. If you have one oven, this is how you should separate between a sambusak and a cake. The sambusak is covered by its dough; there may be room to be lenient and consider a sambusak pareve, but not other foods. The cake is not covered. I would not advise that; it is only after the fact. I would not advise putting meat and milk in the same oven, even covered; I am speaking about an after-the-fact case. If it happened, it is after the fact.
Rabbi Chananya ben Akashya omer (Rabbi Chananya ben Akashya says), ratza HaKadosh Baruch Hu lezakot et Yisrael, lefichach hirbah lahem Torah umitzvot (The Holy One wished to grant merit to Israel, so He gave them much Torah and mitzvot), as it is said, Hashem chafetz lema'an tzidko yagdil Torah veya'adir (Hashem desired, for His righteousness, to make Torah great and glorious).
Yitgadal veyitkadash shemeh raba. Amen. Be'alma di vera chir'uteh, veyamlich malchuteh, veyatzmach purkaneh vikarev meshicheh. Amen. Bechayeichon uvyomeichon uvchayei dechol beit Yisrael, ba'agala uvizman kariv, ve'imru amen. Amen. Yehe shemeh raba mevarach le'alam ule'almei almaya. Yitbarach veyishtabach veyitpa'ar veyitromam veyitnase veyithadar veyit'aleh veyithalal shemeh dekudsha berich hu. Amen. Le'ela min kol birchata veshirata, tushbechata venechemata, da'amiran be'alma, ve'imru amen. Amen.
Al Yisrael ve'al rabanan ve'al talmideihon ve'al kol talmidei talmideihon, de'askin be'orayta kadishta, di ve'atra haden vedi vechol atar ve'atar, yehe lehon ulana chana vechasda verachamei min kodam marei shemaya ve'ar'a, ve'imru amen. Amen. Yehe shelama raba min shemaya, chayim vesava viyshu'ah venechamah veshizava urfu'ah uge'ulah uslichah vechaparah verevach vehatzalah, lanu ulechol amo Yisrael, ve'imru amen. Amen. Oseh shalom berachamav, hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu ve'al kol amo Yisrael, ve'imru amen. Amen.